The mysterious case of Ms. Carrie Prejean

[kandrathe]

Not that I care a twaddle about the entertainment farce called "The Miss USA" pageant. Just as in politics, it appears that it is getting harder and harder to find one pretty girl in each state who hasn't inhaled or posed for semi-nude photos.

This is what I need to get off of my chest. What is this media obsession with trashing anything that appears to be wholesome? Was it because she answered the "marriage" question according to what she really believed? It appears that moment was at least an honest one in the whole Miss USA pageant.

My first thought was, "Whoa, did they ask every other contestant an equally controversial question?" I'm not sure I can think of 50 controversies where the populace is so equally split, except for maybe abortion. Then, also, "SHOULD we ask beauty queens politically controversial questions?" If you want them to be adored by one side, and hated by the other, then sure, but that is not the purpose of "Miss USA" as a symbol either. I wonder what the judges reaction would have been had she said, "I believe that is an unfair question to ask me, may I have one that is less politically controversial?" Of course, no one would have let it rest after that either, and the same whole mess would have erupted. It was the asking of the question that destroyed that young womans chance to win, and now results in continued attempts by some to entirely destroy her, because of her political views. She might have also lied, and given a politically correct and meaningless answer, and now she would be "Miss USA" and the darling of everyone.

Suddenly, she becomes the lightning rod of polarity between the Conservatives and the Liberals with a cavalcade of appearances on news (entertainment) shows. Now, like Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean has become a conservative heroine, and absolutely hated by liberals and the media. Then there is this whole mess with Perez Hilton, being the celebrity judge who asked the question, who happens to also be gay, then who went on his own popular Blog to continually trash her. Hmmm, conflict of interest? Biased judge? And, the usual muckrakers, start scouring her modeling past looking for titillating photos, or just make stuff up about her to sell their scandal rags. It appears that the only way to avoid being pilloried by the press these days is to confess in advance and beg for forgiveness in a ghost written book about your life to date.

My conclusion is that it is time to END the whole pageant farce. If you want a scholarship, then be a scholar and write an essay like all the other ugly people in the world. Let's leave the entertainment industry to the slime who run it, and so, if you are not a slime ball or a crack whore, then stay away. It seems hypocritical to me to have this whole pageant industry to dangle rewards and scholarships to get pretty young girls to parade around in swimsuits, then act shocked when you find they have paraded around in less than a swim suit. And, then ultimately, they get to the final event only to be asked a leading question that results in their entire life being scrutinized and attacked by the same slime who like to watch young girls parade around in swim suits.

Why do I have this image in my mind of Bambi walking into a pack of wolves?

[Ashock]

Not that I care a twaddle about the entertainment farce called "The Miss USA" pageant. Just as in politics, it appears that it is getting harder and harder to find one pretty girl in each state who hasn't inhaled or posed for semi-nude photos.

This is what I need to get off of my chest. What is this media obsession with trashing anything that appears to be wholesome? Was it because she answered the "marriage" question according to what she really believed? It appears that moment was at least an honest one in the whole Miss USA pageant.

My first thought was, "Whoa, did they ask every other contestant an equally controversial question?" I'm not sure I can think of 50 controversies where the populace is so equally split, except for maybe abortion. Then, also, "SHOULD we ask beauty queens politically controversial questions?" If you want them to be adored by one side, and hated by the other, then sure, but that is not the purpose of "Miss USA" as a symbol either. I wonder what the judges reaction would have been had she said, "I believe that is an unfair question to ask me, may I have one that is less politically controversial?" Of course, no one would have let it rest after that either, and the same whole mess would have erupted. It was the asking of the question that destroyed that young womans chance to win, and now results in continued attempts by some to entirely destroy her, because of her political views. She might have also lied, and given a politically correct and meaningless answer, and now she would be "Miss USA" and the darling of everyone.

Suddenly, she becomes the lightning rod of polarity between the Conservatives and the Liberals with a cavalcade of appearances on news (entertainment) shows. Now, like Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean has become a conservative heroine, and absolutely hated by liberals and the media. Then there is this whole mess with Perez Hilton, being the celebrity judge who asked the question, who happens to also be gay, then who went on his own popular Blog to continually trash her. Hmmm, conflict of interest? Biased judge? And, the usual muckrakers, start scouring her modeling past looking for titillating photos, or just make stuff up about her to sell their scandal rags. It appears that the only way to avoid being pilloried by the press these days is to confess in advance and beg for forgiveness in a ghost written book about your life to date.

My conclusion is that it is time to END the whole pageant farce. If you want a scholarship, then be a scholar and write an essay like all the other ugly people in the world. Let's leave the entertainment industry to the slime who run it, and so, if you are not a slime ball or a crack whore, then stay away. It seems hypocritical to me to have this whole pageant industry to dangle rewards and scholarships to get pretty young girls to parade around in swimsuits, then act shocked when you find they have paraded around in less than a swim suit. And, then ultimately, they get to the final event only to be asked a leading question that results in their entire life being scrutinized and attacked by the same slime who like to watch young girls parade around in swim suits.

Why do I have this image in my mind of Bambi walking into a pack of wolves?

It's very simple, really. This is all a part of a massive propaganda campaign. First, they control what you say. Then, they control what you think. It starts with the media and the elementary schools. Propaganda is a very powerful tool and has controlled masses of people for a long time. I strongly believe that that is where this country is heading. All the signs are pointing to that. Lenin is laughing in his tomb.

As far as the pageants... who gives a rat's ass. They are irrelevant.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . .

Yawn.

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

*Clip*

-The same post i've made repeatedly attempting to man the barracades of conservatism against the rabid onslaught of rampant liberalism only now with a new shiny wrapping.-

I'm with Pete: "YAWN".

And "Wholesome"? Really? Why? Why on earth would you embrace this woman, in any way, as wholesome? Just because she embraces the conservative view? Talk about propaganda. I wasn't aware that nudie pictures were part of the conservative "wholesome" agenda.

She's being trashed because she is gossip news. That's what gossip news does. And that's all the pageant is good for. In that i'm in agreement with you: Get rid of the pageant it offers nothing productive to society, especially nothing which can be described as "wholesome".

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why on earth would you embrace this woman, . . .

'Cause I'm hetero and alive? Oh, wait, that's not what you meant. :w00t:

--Pete

[Kevin]

Hi,
'Cause I'm hetero and alive? Oh, wait, that's not what you meant. :w00t:

--Pete

But it is a good reason! :)

[Jester]

Two words:

"Opposite marriage."

Awesome.

-Jester

[Delc]

Isn't Perez Hilton the celebrity gossip, paparazzi guy? If there is one person who's opinion I care less about than a beauty pageant contestant's, its his.

As for harder to find contestants who haven't inhaled or posed nude. I blame digital cameras, and the internet. 10 years ago people didn't take pictures of themselves doing stupid stuff and distribute it to the entire world. So it was easier to leave it behind when you grew up.

[ShadowHM]

As for harder to find contestants who haven't inhaled or posed nude. I blame digital cameras, and the internet. 10 years ago people didn't take pictures of themselves doing stupid stuff and distribute it to the entire world. So it was easier to leave it behind when you grew up.

It isn't *just* the taking pictures of yourself doing stupid things. It is that digital cameras are hidden in cell phones now and there can now be pictures of you doing stupid things that you thought were done in private. Michael Phelps now understands that, to his sorrow and considerable loss of income for endorsements. I am quite sure that he is not the only person who has found that privacy isn't just eroding, but gushing away in a torrent.

Back to the OP, I have to wonder why there is such a desire to idealize anyone, let alone young women who have a lot to financially gain from appearing to be 'wholesome'.

[Rhydderch Hael]

In this day and age of the liberated woman (who's been around for far longer than I've been alive), the whole institution of the beauty pageant seems pathetically archaic. Now, I'm all for archaic things, but I thought that parading around for the scrutiny of men in positions of power had lost its relevancy the same day that women realized they had more potential than just landing a rich husband to eke out the rest of her days as a homemaker.

[kandrathe]

... First, they control what you say. ...

Yes, not to be distracted by the fluff, it is about an organized attempt to discredit people. I believe it is a misuse of "free speech" for media to be used in this way, and when it is done politically, it does smack of a propaganda smear campaign.

That was really my point, like with any political figure, or any person of sudden renown, there is this rumor mill mud flinging campaign meant to cast doubts or damage someone. This really is the juxtaposition of the rights of people to publish/speak what they like opposed to a person keeping parts of their life private. Michael Phelps is another case where knowing about his self medication was something that the public should never have been informed. Maybe, if he was arrested, then it, being in the public record would make it press worthy.

First, whatever a persons politics, I think the practice of the press performing an extensive background examination on people needs to end. For the most part, I feel it should be up to the individual to determine what aspects of their life they would like to reveal. For a person running for high office then, it may in fact be expedient to self reveal an accurate accounting of their past. Ms. Prejean was not trying to be involved in the question of gay marriage, but in asking the question she was propelled into the melee. She just wanted the fluffy title of Miss USA, not a media firestorm, and not an activist career for the Moral Majority.

Second, if someone sends something to the media that is private, and was performed in private, then it should remain in private. The media used to follow this rule, and in the past showed more restraint when censoring itself. Like I said before, they have abused their free speech rights to the point of defamation, libel and slander.

Third, I think Shadow is right. Technology has led to the erosion of privacy, and it may be time to strengthen the laws regarding the distribution of unauthorized recordings, or photographing of another person without their consent. This goes triple for the paparazzi following around people of interest trying to get a statement or photograph, or using 10000x photo lenses to capture fuzzy nudes of public people in their own homes. We are at the point now with Ms. Prejean where having exhausted the unauthorized photos from her modeling photo shoots, they are resorting to Photoshop to discredit her. I can only deduce that "they" believe that Christians should also all be prudes and dress like the fundamentalist Mormons. And then, finding one in a bikini, or modeling is sooooo shocking!

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . it may be time to strengthen the laws regarding the distribution of unauthorized recordings, or photographing of another person without their consent.

OK, what did you do with the *real* kandrathe? Yeah, that's just what we need, unenforceable laws restricting first amendment rights.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

In this day and age of the liberated woman (who's been around for far longer than I've been alive), the whole institution of the beauty pageant seems pathetically archaic. Now, I'm all for archaic things, but I thought that parading around for the scrutiny of men in positions of power had lost its relevancy the same day that women realized they had more potential than just landing a rich husband to eke out the rest of her days as a homemaker.

As my wife described, "it's really a modeling competition, because if you wanted to be an accountant you'd be busy in college." So, I guess that the career path of models may involve both pageants, and scantily clad bikini photo shoots. I think Mr. Trump actually made an enlightened decision in not firing Ms. Prejean, but a *real* bad one in selecting Mr. Hilton to be a judge. My wish is that Perez Hilton suffers the fate he deserves.

I believe in the liberation of people to do whatever they like with the assets they have. If that happens to be beauty over brains, then so be it. In fact, I would go as far as saying that we should remove "crimes" from the books that are based on "sins" that have no victims. Morality beyond the laws can be dealt with by more appropriate institutions than the State.

Most model photos actually appear in womens magazines, but then there is the whole "womens" debate about "body image", and the unrealistic expectation imposed on women that the parade of skinny perfect models portrays. As a liberated man, first, its not my debate, second, I don't have a problem with "realistic" women as models.

I happen to be a man that is attracted first to the volume of a womens cortical folding and how well she exercises her neocortex. There is that whole mammalian sexual attraction thing, but I find that fades very rapidly when the person is shallow or vacuous. I blame it on being Scandinavian. There's that whole long winter, and geographic isolation forcing one to not be so choosy regarding potential mates. In fact, when my Mom recently asked about the meaning of her maiden name I joked that it was Swedish for Hill Billy. At least we are not as inbred as the Icelanders.

[kandrathe]

OK, what did you do with the *real* kandrathe?

He was still sleeping. :lol:

Yeah, that's just what we need, unenforceable laws restricting first amendment rights.

Well, I was not really thinking of restricting speech, just creating a legal precedence for the right of privacy based upon the premise of "unreasonable search and seizure". It may take an amendment to the Constitution to do it, but our electronic data needs better Constitutional protection, as well as intrusion into our private affairs by electronic means. This means all those modern gadgets which pierce our veil of privacy, such as shotgun microphones, and other listening devices, telephoto lenses or other image enhancement technology that uses IR, or ultrasonic waves to capture images though walls or clothing.

And, as much as I *hate* to say it, the internet needs to be reined in a bit from the anarchy that it is. My preference would be that it do that in two ways;

The first, is to think of it as a big town with zoning, where everything that is currently happening is still allowed, but zoned to the correct areas. That way, if you are looking for a business, you go to the business district. If you are looking for a school, or university, you go to the education section. Etc.

Second, I think all hosts of content should be treated like any other publisher. So, if you host a blog for the LA times and slander someone, it should be as easy to hold you legally accountable as if it were published in the LA times. If you post content that is ripped from elsewhere, then also it should be very easy to legally prosecute you for violations of fair use.

I am also hopeful that new document technology will enable the permanent embedding of authorship (i.e. electronic signature on steroids) to all electronic documents which would allow anyone to easily determine the original source and intent of electronic content. And, I do believe in anonymity for forums, and discussions, but ultimately the sites host must be responsible for removing any content which violates the law.

Edit: I'm reading this Harvard Law Review (Vol. IV No. 5) article from December 15, 1890 entitled, “The Right to Privacy” by Warren and Brandeis. I might have more to say on the topic after reading this.

Edit2: Enlightening, and it is a little scary to me that I am in agreement with Brandeis, who is better known as a progressive. However, his dissents on the Supreme Court in favor of free speech and privacy seem spot on in my opinion. Perhaps Olmstead v. United States 1928 is the best example of a case where the court considered the invasion of privacy by electronic means. Brandeis was in the minority, but later in the 1960's his position was affirmed when the Olmstead precedence was over turned.

[Jester]

And, as much as I *hate* to say it, the internet needs to be reined in a bit from the anarchy that it is.

That anarchy is the best thing the US has produced since nuclear power. Why restrict it? It's glorious. It's insane. It's a series of tubes. It can haz cheezburger. It's the internet.

-Jester

Afterthought: Neat from your link how Brandeis' opinion in Olmstead has become the scourge of movement conservatism, as the basis for Miranda, Roe, and Griswold, all widely hated judgments. Once you establish something so fundamental as a constitutional right to privacy, the implications are staggering.

[kandrathe]

That anarchy is the best thing the US has produced since nuclear power. Why restrict it? It's glorious. It's insane. It's a series of tubes. It can haz cheezburger. It's the internet.

My biggest complaint is that right next door to "AOL: Kids Radio - Free Online Kids Radio Stations" is "somethingawful". And, it is impossible to safely search the internet for a relative of mine named Eva Dahlgren. It is akin to walking down that internet street searching for your stray pet named "cuddles", while being solicited by every street hustler awake at 3am in Amsterdam.

Don't get me wrong; I enjoy the mosh pit frenzy for its insaneness, but there are times when you just want to enjoy a cup of Earl Grey without Annie Hawkins-Turner or some Yogurting Manga freak cavorting across your Zen pebble garden.

So far, my 6 and 8 year old can only be on the internet after I've taken them to their destination. And, even then, I'm worried about them freely associating with the public at large in venues designed for their age.

Rulez? We don't need no stinken rulez!

That is, until you want to have a society that actually grows and prospers. I'm really only looking for those same sane protections that one would have in a very free society which protect us from harm. Albeit, thereby ends the anarchy.

[Delc]

The first, is to think of it as a big town with zoning, where everything that is currently happening is still allowed, but zoned to the correct areas. That way, if you are looking for a business, you go to the business district. If you are looking for a school, or university, you go to the education section. Etc.

I keep seeing this idea pop up different places, but what does it mean? The internet was originally zoned with top level domains (com, gov, edu, org), but that's largely ignored and everyone wants .com now. Also, what would something like the Lurker Lounge be? Games, politics, social networking, pr0n (at least till the mods remove it)?

I am also hopeful that new document technology will enable the permanent embedding of authorship (i.e. electronic signature on steroids) to all electronic documents which would allow anyone to easily determine the original source and intent of electronic content. And, I do believe in anonymity for forums, and discussions, but ultimately the sites host must be responsible for removing any content which violates the law.

To view a document you have to have a program that can interpret it, so the format has to be well known. If the format is well known you can create programs that ignore pieces of it, or overwrite them how ever you choose. DRM pushers run into this problem all the time. Anything enforced at the software level on a machine you have full access to is meaningless. The only option would be hardware enforcement (only because its more expensive to bypass), but that's not feasible unless someone plans on forcing new computers on everyone.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well, I was not really thinking of restricting speech, just creating a legal precedence for the right of privacy based upon the premise of "unreasonable search and seizure". It may take an amendment to the Constitution to do it, but our electronic data needs better Constitutional protection, as well as intrusion into our private affairs by electronic means.

Even as you post this to a site having many contributors from around the world, you still overlook the fact that the Internet is international and the USA (still) has no jurisdiction beyond its borders. The only way any restriction would work would require both censoring the material on the net and blocking the exchange of material from outside the USA. Restricting our access to only government approved internal material is not, in my opinion, a good step for us to take. Perhaps it is the next logical step in the march to negate the Bill of Rights which the far right seems to be hell bent on achieving so that we can all be good puppets of the state, the church, and the military-industrial complex, but I hope that some spark of independence and liberty still exists in the American psyche and that that march will be halted.

This means all those modern gadgets which pierce our veil of privacy, such as shotgun microphones, and other listening devices, telephoto lenses or other image enhancement technology that uses IR, or ultrasonic waves to capture images though walls or clothing.

Right. How do you plan to do that? Uninvent them? Besides, who are you protecting? Us, the common people? No one gives much of a damn what we do, no one is interested enough to spy on us. Sure, if we do something spectacularly stupid in public chances are that it will end up on YouTube. So what? A hundred years ago it would have ended up in the rumor mill. No big change. Then, as now, it was smart not to be stupid. Or, at least, not to be stupid in public.

The first, is to think of it as a big town with zoning, where everything that is currently happening is still allowed, but zoned to the correct areas. That way, if you are looking for a business, you go to the business district. If you are looking for a school, or university, you go to the education section. Etc.

The reason zoning works is that the zones are separated by space, by distance. Separating them by a mouse click seems pretty inane. Besides, the original intention was to do something exactly like that, thus the .net, .org, .com, .gov, etc., part of domain names. The failure was that nobody was there to enforce it. As always, anarchy only works when everyone follows the rules. Trouble is, you have to be intelligent enough to know the rules. After the September that never ended, and with the opening of the net to AoL, the average intelligence dropped to where the anarchy became lawlessness. Unfortunately, the net is like the world, there is no central authority and what little authority there is is toothless.

Second, I think all hosts of content should be treated like any other publisher. So, if you host a blog for the LA times and slander someone, it should be as easy to hold you legally accountable as if it were published in the LA times. If you post content that is ripped from elsewhere, then also it should be very easy to legally prosecute you for violations of fair use.

Do this, and about the middle of next week there will be no Lurker Lounge, no Wiki, no free anything. All that will be left will be pay sites, for only pay sites will be able to cover the legal expenses. So, even if this were doable (and in an international medium as fluid as the net, I doubt it is) it is a poor idea.

I am also hopeful that new document technology will enable the permanent embedding of authorship (i.e. electronic signature on steroids) to all electronic documents which would allow anyone to easily determine the original source and intent of electronic content. And, I do believe in anonymity for forums, and discussions, but ultimately the sites host must be responsible for removing any content which violates the law.

First, think about what a document is at the most basic level. A string of ones and zeros. From that string, it will always be possible to remove any authorship information and leave only the content. If the document is printable, then print it, OCR the printed version and you've scrubbed any embedded information. If it is not printable, then do screen captures and proceed as before.

Second, who are these 'site hosts' you speak of? Oh, sure, small sites are easy. But what about newsgroups? What about Wiki? Who's got the time to spare to supervise those? And those are just two examples. What you propose isn't just throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it's running the baby through a meat grinder.

For myself, I can live quite well by ignoring what I don't care for on the Internet, on TV, in the media. I have no problem letting others live as they wish as long as it is not forced on me. And I have no problem living in a glass house -- I'm not perfect, but I'm not ashamed of my imperfections, either. Privacy is a nicety we all like, but it is only a necessity for those having something to hide.

--Pete

[Jester]

My biggest complaint is that right next door to "AOL: Kids Radio - Free Online Kids Radio Stations" is "somethingawful". And, it is impossible to safely search the internet for a relative of mine named Eva Dahlgren. It is akin to walking down that internet street searching for your stray pet named "cuddles", while being solicited by every street hustler awake at 3am in Amsterdam.

Don't get me wrong; I enjoy the mosh pit frenzy for its insaneness, but there are times when you just want to enjoy a cup of Earl Grey without Annie Hawkins-Turner or some Yogurting Manga freak cavorting across your Zen pebble garden.

So far, my 6 and 8 year old can only be on the internet after I've taken them to their destination. And, even then, I'm worried about them freely associating with the public at large in venues designed for their age.

Rulez? We don't need no stinken rulez!

That is, until you want to have a society that actually grows and prospers. I'm really only looking for those same sane protections that one would have in a very free society which protect us from harm. Albeit, thereby ends the anarchy.

What kinda crazy libertarian anarchist type are you, anyway? If you can't take the 4chan, stay off the intarwebz! A society which 'protects' you from omg-I-just-clicked-a-link-from-Lowtax-oh-god-my-eyes-I-think-my-eyes-are-melting harm, is a society I wouldn't live in.

There's a reason "Think of the children!" is Maude Flanders' catchphrase.

-Jester

[Jester]

Privacy is a nicety we all like, but it is only a necessity for those having something to hide.

Not sure I really like that argument. I'm all for keeping the internet free, and certainly for not dragging it through the madness of a slander litigation festival. But the idea that people have a right to a reasonable level of privacy, especially from the government, seems to be an important one.

-Jester